Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Turning the jerk dial down
Like most communities, both online and off HoL has a few moments of tension and some grumpiness. That's life. However, it doesn't mean that we can't improve on things.
A few people have told me that they know someone who's been put off from contributing or even visiting HoL because of some of the behaviour on the site...and that's a shame. Liz and I work hard to try and make the overall tone positive and the environment safe. Our visitor statistics show that HoL is getting more and more popular. We're growing the number of unique daily visitors every month and according to figures provided by the Hornsey Journal, we get twice the number of visitors as their sites, but could we do more to make HoL and even better place to visit?
The other day I was reading social media guru Clay Shirky writing on dealing with bad behaviour in online forums:
That provides some options for turning the jerk dial down. One is to make identity valuable........... Another approach is to partition public platforms, thus reducing the incentive to publicly act out.
Both points resonate with me when thinking about forums in general and left me with two questions:
- Do we have a need to turn the jerk dial down on HoL?
- If so, how should we put Shirky's insights into practice?
On partitioning the platform, the obvious answer is to do away with, or make less central, the latest activity feature. I've tried that before and was met with a storm of protest. It remains an option.
Any thoughts on the general issues and HoL responses most welcome.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Well, well. Hugh mentions Clay Shirky. The topic for discussion is sidetracked to Hugh Flouch.
════════════
I've nearly finished Shirky's "Cognitive Surplus". (Unfortunately not yet out in paperback. But hey, the Big Green Bookshop needs your support!) Shirky provokes lots of ideas - even when he's clearly got things at least partly wrong.
But on one issue - not specifically discussed in the book - Shirky is undoubtedly right. Local newspapers seem set to vanish soon. Some of ours seem to be little more than advertorial and churnalism for press releases.
As Shirky says, we do not need newspapers, but we do need journalists. I'd like to see local websites become new vehicles for local journalism. Factual reporting and solid information. With stories thoroughly investigated.
Of course, I may be one of the 'jerks' that some people would like to turn down. But I'd be very happy to swap my opportunity to sound off, if it meant well written, in-depth reporting.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Ha ha, and I bet if Hugh employed some journalists people would moan to him in the street about them too.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Is that well well as in I've managed not to mention him since recommending his first book four years ago or another type of well well?
-
-
It was several 'wells' all brimming over.
Thanks to your recommendation, I read Shirky's blog from time to time; watch him (on videos); and bought his books. I also invite my council colleagues to consider his ideas, since he offers many relevant insights — if they would but watch or read.
I don't think you gave the link for his jerk-dial piece. It seems to be this article. Which is short and to the point. As he often does, Shirky spots repeating patterns. And we should have an "Aha" moment when we realise that what seems to be a HoL problem is actually a common tension on many forums. He even points to the analogy: ". . . you recognize that a rhetorical tragedy of the commons is occurring in many forums."
Then he mentions some pragmatic solutions which have been tested. Fascinating stuff. And very much work in progress. (I couldn't see an article date; it seems to be about six months ago.)
-
-
There's a lot of bemoaning the demise of local press, but I think this is an issue that plays differently on both sides of the Atlantic. It's worth remembering that Shirky is writing from a US context where local journalism has commonly been high quality investigative journalism in living memory. Can we really make the same claim over here? Rarely, I'd say.
That's not to say I disagree with your aspirations, Alan. Far from it; I share them. Ah, if there but were world enough and time........
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I find this very strange. I can't recall any recent posts that would deter anyone with a sense of proportion from visiting and contributing. Surely the statistics that you quote - " more and more popular ", " Twice the number of visitors " etc - show that the forum hits about the right tone.
You can't please everyone but you're obviously pleasing a lot of people. Don't turn HOL into some anodyne, soma-fed, feel-good featurette. Let's have MORE tension and grumpiness - as long as it's interesting :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Angela on
-
It's exactly this sort of discussion which puts some people off contributing ime (having spoken to a number of people over a period of time - mostly mums). They sign up to , and read, the weekly round-up for example but have never actually posted on any threads, or rarely do so.
The reason why these people don't post is because this site (or rather some members) treat it as a peer reviewed journal rather than a community forum and the lurkers are wary of saying 'the wrong thing'.
The issue of anonymity is also a key issue imo. We are neighbours/friends/colleagues/fellow parents - we may know some posters in RL and may never meet others. And that affects how we post and react to posters.
How you deal with that online is beyond me! The layout def needs looking at though.
-
-
Thanks for the contribution Angela. Interesting. Are you saying that this type of discussion is offputting or the way it's conducted? Can you say a bit more about what you mean by "peer reviewed journal" and its effect. I can guess, but I'm not sure if I correctly understand what you are saying. It sounds like you're pointing to an issue of cliqueyness. Am I right?
As far as anonymity or pseudonymity is concerned, my understanding is that a far higher proportion of folks use their real names on the site than on most like it. Some feel that the liberating effect of operating behind a 'screen' is a good thing in that it creates a freedom not experienced in real life. Others feel that this freedom is ultimately negative since it is too often exercised as a right to be more critical/confrontational.
-
-
What I mean is the type of response you get to a discussion like this, rather than the discssion itself.
And by 'peer reviewed journal' I don't mean cliqueyness, more a sense of intellectual showing off (or at least that's how it comes across at times). Nothing wrong with being clever with words or arguements but to use it as a weapon is not conducive to open debate.
As for anonymity, been there, done that on a parenting forum. The clamour for recognition for some individuals is/was astounding - me, Me, ME! But on here as I said earlier, we are friends/neighbours/parents and that makes people more wary.
Tbh there is a culture of I say what I like and I like what I say on here (and they aren't even from Yorkshire, afaik)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
